|
On April 19 2013 06:15 Believer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On April 19 2013 06:11 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 05:57 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 05:54 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 05:38 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 05:37 Teoman wrote:On April 19 2013 05:30 Believer wrote:
Swede here. Strongly support monarchy and wish the king had more power. May i ask. Why? I believe royals are superior to us "grunts". Are you trolling here or something? Our king is an illiterate whore-mongering imbecile who can't even spell his own title, all but one of his children are spoiled brats with an IQ barely above sea level who live off of the sweat of hard-working people, a non-stop party with the taxpayers picking up the bill. Their like a whole band of drunk uncles who just won't leave. Revolting. Monarchy is an embrassament, it's like a vestigial tumour from a time when we didn't know what an atom was and thought witches were responisble for soured milk. For the republics in Europe and the US, you have my sincere envy. Viva la revolucion. I am not trolling. I have never said that the IQ or literally skills or even the morale of our royals are above us. I just think that they are worth more than me, in terms of "worthiness". If your wife was going to get hit by a bus and the only way to stop it was to push her out of the way and instead sacrifice yourself, would you do it? I suspect most of us would, I know I would. That is the sort of feeling I have for our royal family. Maybe not to the extent of sacrificing my existence to them, but I would do a lot. I'd push them in front of the bus. Why would they have some greater inherent value than other members of the same primate species? Why are they exempt from the rule of being judged by your actions, not your birth? What an absolutely disgusting idea, fundamentally undemocratic and contrary to almost every humanistic principle I can think of. It's such a laughable concept, so illogical and without any reasoned merit whatsoever, it's based on bronze age morality and social policies one would expect to find in a pack of hyenas. The king is the king because he has power, soldiers, and can simply take what he wants. Might makes right, law of the jungle. That would make you a murderer. So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast. I state my position and you ridicule me. The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate. As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might. Morality is just an invention, and you criticize the other poster for being a murderer? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I have nothing against laws. Laws are specific moralities that we must all abide by if we expect to be treated like full citizens. I do not agree with all laws, but I must follow them. In the eyes of society and the judicial system he would not be treated like someone who isn't a murderer. I pointed out that I have not yet threatened anyone or said I would be a criminal if the situation arose. There is no double standard here like you propose.
Well, i also thought you were trolling with the "I believe royals are superior to us "grunts".
And i would be with McBent on that case, i actually laughed when he answered the bus thing because i was thinking the same. My problem with monarchy, since while we have a king, and prince/ess that have obligations to the state while they are not involved in ruling, around them we have a lot of aristocracy with insane amount of wealth that have no purpose outside getting in magazines, or getting involved on corruption scandals. I would completely abolish it if i could, but for our country, i can understand why it is still on and why people still believe in our monarch (the king had the power once Franco died, and he "gave it up" to set up a democracy is how people believe it happened).
Anyways, i was more baffled about some of the points of view of the OP when trying to do a poll, not being objective about it, and the miss information on it.
|
On April 19 2013 06:15 Grumbels wrote:
Too bad that's not how taxation works. You can't avoid paying taxes for whatever pet issue you might have. I mentioned that the monarchy could be funded entirely by donations not as an idea for the future, but to illustrate that you might as well tax it at that point. Furthermore, they can't officially represent the country without public funding.
So we get rid of it then. It serves no purpose, and is simply a drain of resources. It's also a matter of principle.
We have public representation already, it's called elected officials, you know the people who are actually qualified to represent the country in the first place, and were chosen based on their merits to do so.
|
On April 19 2013 06:18 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics.
Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there.
If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible.
On April 19 2013 06:19 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient.
You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts.
|
On April 19 2013 06:24 Believer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 19 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On April 19 2013 06:11 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 05:57 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 05:54 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 05:38 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 05:37 Teoman wrote:On April 19 2013 05:30 Believer wrote:
Swede here. Strongly support monarchy and wish the king had more power. May i ask. Why? I believe royals are superior to us "grunts". Are you trolling here or something? Our king is an illiterate whore-mongering imbecile who can't even spell his own title, all but one of his children are spoiled brats with an IQ barely above sea level who live off of the sweat of hard-working people, a non-stop party with the taxpayers picking up the bill. Their like a whole band of drunk uncles who just won't leave. Revolting. Monarchy is an embrassament, it's like a vestigial tumour from a time when we didn't know what an atom was and thought witches were responisble for soured milk. For the republics in Europe and the US, you have my sincere envy. Viva la revolucion. I am not trolling. I have never said that the IQ or literally skills or even the morale of our royals are above us. I just think that they are worth more than me, in terms of "worthiness". If your wife was going to get hit by a bus and the only way to stop it was to push her out of the way and instead sacrifice yourself, would you do it? I suspect most of us would, I know I would. That is the sort of feeling I have for our royal family. Maybe not to the extent of sacrificing my existence to them, but I would do a lot. I'd push them in front of the bus. Why would they have some greater inherent value than other members of the same primate species? Why are they exempt from the rule of being judged by your actions, not your birth? What an absolutely disgusting idea, fundamentally undemocratic and contrary to almost every humanistic principle I can think of. It's such a laughable concept, so illogical and without any reasoned merit whatsoever, it's based on bronze age morality and social policies one would expect to find in a pack of hyenas. The king is the king because he has power, soldiers, and can simply take what he wants. Might makes right, law of the jungle. That would make you a murderer. So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast. I state my position and you ridicule me. The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate. As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might. Morality is just an invention, and you criticize the other poster for being a murderer? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. He doesn't seem to understand that lots of things are just inventions of the mind, constructions of the mind, and these things guide / rule human behavior, and as such are just as real, at least in a way, as the people acting according to them. They cause behavior. The behavior is very real. Giving short shrift to why the behavior happened for the reason of advancing another moral-politico narrative is deliberately not holistic, at the very least. I am not too happy to be talked about while I am obviously reading the thread, and you are not. If you read my previous texts you will see that I do not advocate either side of the debate. I state that I am in favor of monarchy and why I do so. I point out that both morality and monarchy are to a large extent inventions of humans, I choose monarchy. Morality is not absolute, no one can argue that. I have morals, but they will not be the same as yours, probably very different. My morals are probably very different from most, but I'd argue that few moralities are exactly the same. You pick your favourite imaginations and you stick to them. That's what I've done and what I've stated in this thread.
It happens to everyone but I will try to remember to address you directly from now on.
I disagree with moral relativism but that is tangential to the specific issue here.
I am saying that the concept of morality as an invention devalues it more than it should. Morality "governs" non-instinctual behaviors. Calling it an invention implies it is less real than it is and less important than it is. Behavior is real. What causes it, by causation and by proxy, is real. That is why morals are debated. That is why the morals of a society are an issue for that society, no matter good or bad how they are, no matter that the good and bad are supposedly relative. Because the effects of behavior are real and have an impact on others.
|
Chocolate:
You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts.
W-w-w-whaaaaaat?
Go read an in-depth history about the USSR, please. What you just said, the wrongness of it, it's over 9000 thousand for sure.
I know how humans behave. "Office politics," anyone? It's worse when the office politics are part and parcel of the real, politics politics of the government.
|
Norway28492 Posts
during my teenage years I was really opposed to monarchy as an institution and found the idea that we in norway still have an unelected king whom lives in a fucking castle absolutely ridiculous. Actually, I still do. It's just that my opposition has declined a large amount over the last 6-7 years.
reason?
the king of norway and the crown prince of norway are both probably just about the best possible representatives for norway we could possibly get. if there was an election, and either of them decided to run for "representative of state", I would vote for them ahead of every single other norwegian person I can think of. they're great people.
so like, I'm still opposed. I just don't care very much, because I'm so content with the situation.
here's the really funny thing. Our crown prince (Haakon) has an older sister, Märtha Louise. When she was born, we still suffered from this, highly anachronistic idea that females could not be regents, and thus, she merely became a princess rather than a crown princess, and has no claim to the future throne. This rule has been abolished since. Now, I'm principally just about equally opposed to the idea that males should have hereditary rights more so than females as I am to the idea that the head of state should be a hereditary position period; but: I'm fine with Haakon being my future king, because he's such an awesome person. martha louise however, is an absolute first class nutcase. These two moronic rules essentially cancel eachother out and create a very liveable situation.
I have a hard time imagining monarchy as an institution surviving past haakon though. pretty certain norwegians are growing more and more opposed to it - principally.
|
On April 19 2013 06:29 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:18 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics. Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there. If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible. Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:19 Zaros wrote:On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient. You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts.
I'm referring to any state run industry, if there is no profit motive there is no reason to do things efficiently and for the customers and it also stifles innovation even if it could be run efficiently.
|
On April 19 2013 05:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:46 Kukaracha wrote:
Replace Chomsky with Bourdieu : problem solved!
Money is not the elite's biggest wealth; culture is. Growing up, I had no idea to which studies I was headed to, and neither did my parents. And yet I have a friend whose brother, aged 14, already knows the top 10 business schools of the country and their classification!
Luckily my grandfather woke me up every morning to the sound of an opera, serving a typical Chilean breakfast while I would read books on military history. I don't know if a big fat cheque would've been a better gift, I don't think so. Well the problem of replacing a pedantic, dishonest, and incoherent political theorist with a credible one is solved, at least. I disagree with Bourdieu, but he's a man you can have a discussion with him acting in good faith and actually being interested in disagreeing views. And I agree that culture is a bigger wealth to the elite than money is. But culture is not necessarily a product of money, as your own personal experience shows (well, it could show that: was/is your grandfather wealthy?)
In fact he did come from a wealthy family! It was only a series of eccentric poor decisions that led him to a relative state of poverty. It was very odd to see that he has old friends that work in the government or in foreign universities.
I do feel that culture is also greatly inherited from our environment and thus from our family, and not only in the narrowest sense. Many times I have seen people debate on this matter speaking in absolute possibilities : a man can do what he desires, nothing prevents him from attending a public library, earning a degree and slowly walking towards a higher standard of living. But the way I see it, ambition or even the perception of a possible better life are cultural inheritances, and this works at all levels. A kid from a wealthy family may grow up with some ambitions, but he will likely only reproduce his parents's situation without really looking to establish himself as an even more powerful member of society. The masses follow their parents' footsteps while a few take stray paths that lead them to unknown territories.
The point I was making about my grandfather and my friend is that perspectives are themselves inherited, and this is the reason I believe the state must intervene in some way : to provide a cultural baggage to every citizen so social mobility, and thus a higher level of competitivity and excellence are ensured.
It also works towards social justice, but I believe it is a more personal take on ethics and the importance of empathy.
|
On April 19 2013 06:23 McBengt wrote:Depends on whether they died or not. Do you really think I was serious about pushing the king in front of a bus? Show nested quote +
So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast.
The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
Can you even read? I said your idea was disgusting, precisely because it places a certain caste of people above others, undeservedly. I hate the idea of a monarchy yes, with all my heart. I ridicule you because your points are ridiculous. Yes modern morality is a human invention, just like monarchy. Your point? Penicillin is a human invention too, and so is nazism. Some inventions are good, some bad. Monarchy is thoroughly terrible. Show nested quote +The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
You get the responses your posts merit. If you want less hostility, consider making better posts. Show nested quote +
As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might.
I knew you'd say this. Reread the part about the principle and origin of monarchy again. The basic concept of a monarch is based on the idea of the rule of the strong, the king rules because anyone who challenges him will be beaten into submission. The fact that modern monarchies have become a farcical soap opera rather than a political force does not change the fundamental concept.
The quotes are becoming to many, I will answer them by numbers instead. I hope you understand.
#1: Sarcasm is hard on the internet, many people say terrible things being very serious and some are not serious. Considering your earlier posts, I do not consider it at all impossible for you to have the gut reaction to kill the king.
#2: Again, your impression of "deserving" is different from mine. I do believe the royals deserve to have more power than they currently have. Your argument is one of meritocracy, which most agree with, but I do not. The OP wanted honest opinions from all over the world, I have provided mine and I won't withdraw it because of your bullying.
#3: Please read my response to the other gentleman, I talk about human inventions there.
#4: My posts merit hate and discussion of murder? I wouldn't take it that far. My opinion is not one of popularity, but does it not deserve acceptance? Out of the two of us, you favour democracy more. Shouldn't you be glad when I have opposing ideas, ideological flavour so to speak.
#5: Yes, the monarchs ruled with an iron fist in ages past. Though I thought we discussed current day monarchies, in our case the Swedish royalty. If you'd like to point at me saying that I want more power to the royals, how far are you really gonna assume things? Are you gonna assume that I want the kings of the 1700 or 1800? That's what you've been doing so far.
I dislike having words put in my mouth, is it really impossible that I want the royal power of 1974?
|
On April 19 2013 06:25 grush57 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:23 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 06:11 Believer wrote:
That would make you a murderer.
Depends on whether they died or not. Do you really think I was serious about pushing the king in front of a bus?
So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast.
The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
Can you even read? I said your idea was disgusting, precisely because it places a certain caste of people above others, undeservedly. I hate the idea of a monarchy yes, with all my heart. I ridicule you because your points are ridiculous. Yes modern morality is a human invention, just like monarchy. Your point? Penicillin is a human invention too, and so is nazism. Some inventions are good, some bad. Monarchy is thoroughly terrible. The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
You get the responses your posts merit. If you want less hostility, consider making better posts.
As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might.
I knew you'd say this. Reread the part about the principle and origin of monarchy again. The basic concept of a monarch is based on the idea of the rule of the strong, the king rules because anyone who challenges him will be beaten into submission. The fact that modern monarchies have become a farcical soap opera rather than a political force does not change the fundamental concept. I would stop replying I think he is a troll.
He very likely is not. Trust me, on average the world has a VERY exaggerated view of Sweden and the people that live here. For some reason this place breeds a unique type of cretin that I have yet to discover anywhere else.
The quotes are becoming to many, I will answer them by numbers instead. I hope you understand.
#1: Sarcasm is hard on the internet, many people say terrible things being very serious and some are not serious. Considering your earlier posts, I do not consider it at all impossible for you to have the gut reaction to kill the king.
#2: Again, your impression of "deserving" is different from mine. I do believe the royals deserve to have more power than they currently have. Your argument is one of meritocracy, which most agree with, but I do not. The OP wanted honest opinions from all over the world, I have provided mine and I won't withdraw it because of your bullying.
#3: Please read my response to the other gentleman, I talk about human inventions there.
#4: My posts merit hate and discussion of murder? I wouldn't take it that far. My opinion is not one of popularity, but does it not deserve acceptance? Out of the two of us, you favour democracy more. Shouldn't you be glad when I have opposing ideas, ideological flavour so to speak.
#5: Yes, the monarchs ruled with an iron fist in ages past. Though I thought we discussed current day monarchies, in our case the Swedish royalty. If you'd like to point at me saying that I want more power to the royals, how far are you really gonna assume things? Are you gonna assume that I want the kings of the 1700 or 1800? That's what you've been doing so far.
I dislike having words put in my mouth, is it really impossible that I want the royal power of 1974?
Do you know how the swedish king managed to secure his unprecendented position of wealth and complete absence of responsibilities? How he more or less blackmailed the government into handing him and his useless heirs a big check every month in exchange for surrendering his political power?
I accept your opinion and will no effort to silence it, that would be entirely against my principles. I will however refute and ridicule them if I find it appropriate.
I don't really care what kind of king you want, the concept is steeped in barbarism and bloodshed, just because the pig is currently wearing some insipid makeup does not make it less of a pig. It's repugnant, and has no place in a modern society.
|
On April 19 2013 06:32 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:29 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:18 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics. Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there. If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible. On April 19 2013 06:19 Zaros wrote:On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient. You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts. I'm referring to any state run industry, if there is no profit motive there is no reason to do things efficiently and for the customers and it also stifles innovation even if it could be run efficiently.
Why does that have to be the case? A state owned business should have the same motivations as a privately owned business. For a start if a state owned business does badly then the senior staff should be fired. If it continues to do badly then it should be dissolved.
|
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 19 2013 06:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
during my teenage years I was really opposed to monarchy as an institution and found the idea that we in norway still have an unelected king whom lives in a fucking castle absolutely ridiculous. Actually, I still do. It's just that my opposition has declined a large amount over the last 6-7 years.
reason?
the king of norway and the crown prince of norway are both probably just about the best possible representatives for norway we could possibly get. if there was an election, and either of them decided to run for "representative of state", I would vote for them ahead of every single other norwegian person I can think of. they're great people.
so like, I'm still opposed. I just don't care very much, because I'm so content with the situation.
here's the really funny thing. Our crown prince (Haakon) has an older sister, Märtha Louise. When she was born, we still suffered from this, highly anachronistic idea that females could not be regents, and thus, she merely became a princess rather than a crown princess, and has no claim to the future throne. This rule has been abolished since. Now, I'm principally just about equally opposed to the idea that males should have hereditary rights more so than females as I am to the idea that the head of state should be a hereditary position period; but: I'm fine with Haakon being my future king, because he's such an awesome person. martha louise however, is an absolute first class nutcase. These two moronic rules essentially cancel eachother out and create a very liveable situation.
I have a hard time imagining monarchy as an institution surviving past haakon though. pretty certain norwegians are growing more and more opposed to it - principally. do you think if royals are involved in real political decisions, then this nice and fuzzy image you have of them will quickly collapse.
|
On April 19 2013 06:34 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:32 Zaros wrote:On April 19 2013 06:29 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:18 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics. Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there. If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible. On April 19 2013 06:19 Zaros wrote:On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient. You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts. I'm referring to any state run industry, if there is no profit motive there is no reason to do things efficiently and for the customers and it also stifles innovation even if it could be run efficiently. Why does that have to be the case? A state owned business should have the same motivations as a privately owned business. For a start if a state owned business does badly then the senior staff should be fired. If it continues to do badly then it should be dissolved.
It doesn't have the same motivations though.
|
On April 19 2013 06:34 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:25 grush57 wrote:On April 19 2013 06:23 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 06:11 Believer wrote:
That would make you a murderer.
Depends on whether they died or not. Do you really think I was serious about pushing the king in front of a bus?
So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast.
The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
Can you even read? I said your idea was disgusting, precisely because it places a certain caste of people above others, undeservedly. I hate the idea of a monarchy yes, with all my heart. I ridicule you because your points are ridiculous. Yes modern morality is a human invention, just like monarchy. Your point? Penicillin is a human invention too, and so is nazism. Some inventions are good, some bad. Monarchy is thoroughly terrible. The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
You get the responses your posts merit. If you want less hostility, consider making better posts.
As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might.
I knew you'd say this. Reread the part about the principle and origin of monarchy again. The basic concept of a monarch is based on the idea of the rule of the strong, the king rules because anyone who challenges him will be beaten into submission. The fact that modern monarchies have become a farcical soap opera rather than a political force does not change the fundamental concept. I would stop replying I think he is a troll. He very likely is not. Trust me, on average the world has a VERY exaggerated view of Sweden and the people that live here. For some reason this place breeds a unique type of cretin that I have yet to discover anywhere else.
Again, I dislike being talk about rather than to, when I am present. This post clearly demonstrates hate rather than discussion.
|
In theory, a benevolent dictatorship would be the best.
In practice... whatever works for your country and society. Probably in most cases gonna be some form of federal republicanism.
|
On April 19 2013 06:32 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:29 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:18 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics. Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there. If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible. On April 19 2013 06:19 Zaros wrote:On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient. You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts. I'm referring to any state run industry, if there is no profit motive there is no reason to do things efficiently and for the customers and it also stifles innovation even if it could be run efficiently.
I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either.
The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated.
|
I see our monarchy as an undemocratic, unelected waste of space and tax money. Yes they put alot back into our economy, but why should i agree to that just because 'its the age old time honored way of things'? That's the same logic that brings us homophobic law and institutional racism.
Fuck the royal family. Fuck them up their stupid asses.
edit: SPAG
|
On April 19 2013 06:27 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:15 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On April 19 2013 06:11 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 05:57 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 05:54 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 05:38 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 05:37 Teoman wrote:On April 19 2013 05:30 Believer wrote:
Swede here. Strongly support monarchy and wish the king had more power. May i ask. Why? I believe royals are superior to us "grunts". Are you trolling here or something? Our king is an illiterate whore-mongering imbecile who can't even spell his own title, all but one of his children are spoiled brats with an IQ barely above sea level who live off of the sweat of hard-working people, a non-stop party with the taxpayers picking up the bill. Their like a whole band of drunk uncles who just won't leave. Revolting. Monarchy is an embrassament, it's like a vestigial tumour from a time when we didn't know what an atom was and thought witches were responisble for soured milk. For the republics in Europe and the US, you have my sincere envy. Viva la revolucion. I am not trolling. I have never said that the IQ or literally skills or even the morale of our royals are above us. I just think that they are worth more than me, in terms of "worthiness". If your wife was going to get hit by a bus and the only way to stop it was to push her out of the way and instead sacrifice yourself, would you do it? I suspect most of us would, I know I would. That is the sort of feeling I have for our royal family. Maybe not to the extent of sacrificing my existence to them, but I would do a lot. I'd push them in front of the bus. Why would they have some greater inherent value than other members of the same primate species? Why are they exempt from the rule of being judged by your actions, not your birth? What an absolutely disgusting idea, fundamentally undemocratic and contrary to almost every humanistic principle I can think of. It's such a laughable concept, so illogical and without any reasoned merit whatsoever, it's based on bronze age morality and social policies one would expect to find in a pack of hyenas. The king is the king because he has power, soldiers, and can simply take what he wants. Might makes right, law of the jungle. That would make you a murderer. So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast. I state my position and you ridicule me. The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate. As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might. Morality is just an invention, and you criticize the other poster for being a murderer? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I have nothing against laws. Laws are specific moralities that we must all abide by if we expect to be treated like full citizens. I do not agree with all laws, but I must follow them. In the eyes of society and the judicial system he would not be treated like someone who isn't a murderer. I pointed out that I have not yet threatened anyone or said I would be a criminal if the situation arose. There is no double standard here like you propose. Well, i also thought you were trolling with the "I believe royals are superior to us "grunts". And i would be with McBent on that case, i actually laughed when he answered the bus thing because i was thinking the same. My problem with monarchy, since while we have a king, and prince/ess that have obligations to the state while they are not involved in ruling, around them we have a lot of aristocracy with insane amount of wealth that have no purpose outside getting in magazines, or getting involved on corruption scandals. I would completely abolish it if i could, but for our country, i can understand why it is still on and why people still believe in our monarch (the king had the power once Franco died, and he "gave it up" to set up a democracy is how people believe it happened). Anyways, i was more baffled about some of the points of view of the OP when trying to do a poll, not being objective about it, and the miss information on it.
I'm not sure what point you are making, other than stating your opinion. I'm glad I could read something from Spain about monarchy, but I do not completely understand what the discussion value is, I'm sorry.
|
I don't really think the benefits of having a monarchy outweigh the disadvantages, but if that's what those countries want to do I'm completely fine with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
